Regulatory Policy in Peru 2026

Peru has shown strong commitment to implement the substantive OECD legal instruments within the RPC competence.1 The General Law on Improvement of Regulatory Quality makes compulsory the adoption of regulatory management tools such as ex ante assessment of regulation, stakeholder engagement and ex post assessment. It also creates the oversight body of the regulatory quality policy in the country. Peru has also put in place the complementary framework for the roll out of ex ante assessment and public consultation. Nevertheless, there are still gaps to complete the framework. Additionally, the largest challenge is the systematic and effective implementation of tools and practices on regulatory management.

The uptake of key tools to increase the quality of regulations is starting, albeit at a slow pace. The short period of time since the entry into force of the General Law in May 2023 can explain to a large extent this outcome. Additionally, the policy and normative framework to implement additional key aspects of regulatory policy is yet to be developed.

• Peru has taken significant steps to put in place a whole-of-government regulatory policy. The recent publication of the General Law to Improve Regulatory Quality provides a solid policy framework for the implementation of regulatory management tools and practices across the national administration. Among the tools covered by the General Law are forward planning, RIA, ex post evaluations, review of the regulatory stock, stakeholder engagement, and the use of innovative solutions to tackle public policy problems. While it does not cover all key elements of the regulatory policy cycle, such as regulatory enforcement or multi-level governance, the General Law does lay the foundations for a whole-of-government approach to better regulation.

• Peru has put in place the building blocks for the systematic promotion of a regulatory quality culture. Implementing regulatory policy tools and practices systematically calls for a change in culture across the administration, both from higher management and from technical teams. While there is strong support from the highest political level for the regulatory reform, there is still room to build buy-in at the technical level.

• Peru has devoted significant resources to the implementation of regulatory policy in the administration. This includes investments in training and capacity building for public officials required to oversee and implement regulatory policy tools. However, the high level of turnover in ministries and other institutions hamper the impact of these efforts. This is especially acute in key institutions tasked with the oversight of regulatory policy such Undersecretariat for Simplification and Regulatory Analysis (SSAR).

• Complete the policy framework that underpins regulatory policy notably by:

  • Publishing the Bylaw of the General Law on the Improvement of the Regulatory Quality could further cement the implementation of regulatory management tools across the administration.

  • Developing policy documents that encompass measures that help adopt better regulation principles, tools, and practices in areas such as ex post assessment, regulatory enforcement and inspection, and sub-national regulatory policy.

• Advocate for more solid and lasting resources and technical staffing to implement regulatory policy in Peru. The objective is to reduce the high turnover of officials in key institution such as the SSAR, which holds crucial responsibilities for an effective implementation of regulatory tools in Peru. Stable commitment to achieving reform goals must rely on stable expertise and resource.

• Foster the exchange of good practices among different actors and institutions to develop buy-in for regulatory policy across the administration. Economic regulators introduced regulatory policy tools and practices earlier than the national administration. The lessons and experiences of regulators could be leveraged by the PCM to help guide their efforts rolling-out a regulatory reform, and to help secure greater support for the reform by line ministries and other institutions.

• Peru has followed a gradual approach to introducing the obligation to carry out RIA in the Executive Branch; closing the implementation gap is the next big step. The building blocks for the implementation of RIA are in place; however, the use of the tool is still at low levels.

• Peru has introduced mandatory RIA for all entities of the national Executive Branch; however, most regulatory proposals have avoided the assessment. While the policy framework that supports RIA allows for a broad interpretation of the reasons to grant an exception to a regulation from undergoing the impact evaluation process, the high number of requests of exception is undermining the potential of the tool to drive positive public outcomes. Addressing this loophole is crucial to ensure that exceptions are limited and clearly defined.

• The RIA guidelines only define one level of analysis for impact assessments, hindering the proportional allocation of resources to the assessment of regulatory proposals. Although the RIA guidelines grant some flexibility to the institution proposing the regulation regarding the scope and depth of the analysis, the definition of clear and explicit proportionality criteria could help avoid ambiguity and drive the adoption of the RIA tool.

• Peru has taken important steps to manage the regulatory stock, nonetheless efforts have focused mainly on administrative simplification measures. A sound policy and governance framework were crucial to grant a systematic use of burden reduction methodologies and attain positive outcomes. These elements are not yet in place for the ex post evaluation of regulations.

• Assess the performance of the RIA system after the initial stage of implementation of the General Law and implement a plan to bolster the use of RIA. This includes identifying the obstacles that hinder adoption amongst ministries and take measures to tackle them. As part of the plan consider focusing the efforts by the CMCR on major regulatory proposals identified early in the process and work alongside sponsoring ministries in the development of the RIA. The adoption of a proportional approach to RIA is crucial to focus scarce public resources.

• Adopt the use of proportionality criteria and threshold tests for RIA. A clear definition of thresholds and differentiated levels of analysis could help allocate scarce resources in a targeted manner. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure that the most significant regulations are subject to a more thorough assessment.

• Adjust the RIA framework to ensure that exemptions to carrying out RIA are limited. In combination with the use of proportionality criteria, limiting and defining clearer conditions and reasons to grant a RIA exemption can help boost the use of the tool across the administration and ensure that regulatory proposals go through at least a minimum level of analysis. In this scenario, ministries have less opportunity to find loopholes to avoid RIA, but have the benefit of a more streamlined assessment if their draft regulation have an expected low impact.

• Put in place the policy and governance frameworks that support the effective introduction of ex post evaluation of regulations. Initially, publish the Bylaw or guidelines for the systematic use of ex post evaluation and focus its use on a specific set of regulations (i.e. regulations that were approved without a RIA, regulations that have significant impacts on specific groups or sectors, etc.). In a second stage, expand the requirement to other regulations.

• Commit to reduce administrative burdens to business and citizens. Establish digital one-stops shops for the licenses and permits that have the highest impact on citizens and businesses. Leverage from the experience of implementation of the TUPAs to consider digital ones-stop shop that include licenses and permits from all levels of government for the most impactful or common processes carried out by citizens and businesses. This includes stating a firm, receiving benefits from the government, amongst others.

• Peru has made strides to increase transparency in the rule-making process. However, ministries and other entities’ requests to bypass the public consultation requirement are frequent. The publication of guidelines to undertake stakeholder engagement activities in the framework of RIA are the basis for a more systematic adoption of the tool. Nonetheless, only few consultations have taken place and exceptions are frequently granted.

• Entities are required to publish their draft regulation for comments, often this is done in their websites. However, consultation periods are not clearly established, which leads to uncertainty, and limits participation from stakeholders.

• Advance in the implementation of stakeholder engagement during the development of regulations. This comprises limiting and clearly defining the exceptions for public consultation, and in combination with the proportional approach to RIA, establishing different level of requirement on public consultation depending on the expected impact of the draft regulation.

• Create a centralized platform for public consultation and define minimum consultation periods. This can help reduce barriers to participation and boost engagement with citizens and businesses.

• There is no general policy on regulatory compliance and enforcement across government agencies in Peru. Each institution has its own legal framework and its own set of enforcement practices developed over the years. As a result, there is a plethora of units in charge of the enforcement and inspection activities, which depend on the regulatory framework and the organisation of the public administration. Additionally, co-ordination across inspectorates is challenging.

• Inspections and enforcement policies and practices in Peru have in general not adopted approaches based on data and risk. However, there are some examples of the use of risk- and data-driven methods to enforcement and inspections in some inspectorates, especially in those with larger degree of autonomy.

• Peruvian economic regulators align with OECD best practices in terms of governance. They have been able to implement better regulatory management tools effectively, such as ex ante analysis and stakeholder engagement. Despite this performance, economic regulators face pressures that can undermine their governance.

• Include the policy of inspections and enforcement of regulations as an integral part of Peru´s regulatory policy. Embrace and emphasise the importance of compliance and enforcement as part of Peru´s broader policy statement on regulatory quality to achieve the underlying objectives of regulation. This comprises addressing the governance of inspection authorities through a cross-cutting policy. It also implies improving co-ordination and communication, sharing of information, promoting best practices, and learning of successful cases to replicate achievements.

• Take steps to strengthen the culture of independence of economic regulators in Peru. This includes revisiting the administrative approvals that regulators must undergo before the PCM and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), enhancing co-ordination mechanisms, increasing accountability obligations, and rising awareness of the role and objectives of independent economic regulators amongst political actors.

• Within the unitary nature of Peru, sub-national governments have extensive responsibilities to deliver on public policies, which leads them to issue regulation. Sub-national governments in Peru, which include regional governments, provincial municipal governments, and district municipal governments, have extensive exclusive policy responsibilities according to the constitutions and the applicable laws. They also share responsibilities between them.

• Except for some measures on administrative simplification, in general sub-national governments in Peru do not apply more sophisticated regulatory policy tools such as ex ante assessment and stakeholder engagement. There is no legal obligation for sub-national governments in Peru to apply these more advanced tools either. Nevertheless, the General Law on Improvement of Regulatory Quality mandates the Presidency of Council of Ministers to advice sub-national government to promote their adoption.

• Peru engages in International Regulatory Co-operation (IRC) practices on multiple levels despite an absence of an overarching policy statement that promotes a whole of government IRC approach. Despite this, they comprise the promotion of the implementation of regulatory policy tools and practices as part of trade agreements, participation in international fora or through other mechanism to exchange regulatory practices multilaterally or bilaterally, and consideration of international instruments when developing or reviewing domestic law and regulations.

• Develop and implement a strategy to promote the adoption by subnational governments of the instruments to improve regulatory quality included in the General Law. The current plans to roll out the regulatory quality analysis instrument through pilot programmes is a promising start. Ensure that this plan is finished and implemented effectively, and that the lessons learnt are employed to expand the use of this tool and the other instruments included in the General Law. The establishment of outlets to exchange experiences amongst sub-national governments such as conferences, and the offering of capacity building and training exercises on regulatory quality to sub-national governments, can help to disseminate good practice and encourage adoption.

• Increase co-ordination efforts between the national and sub-national levels to enhance regulatory coherence. Leverage from the experience of the Intergovernmental Coordination Council to establish formal specific mechanisms to seek regulatory coherence across levels of government.

• Intensify the use of IRC practices and promote co-ordination activities across ministries and regulators to build a common understanding on IRC. Develop policies to intensify the co-operation with other countries to promote the development and diffusion of good practices and innovations in regulatory policy and governance. Define mechanism to co-ordinate these efforts across government entities to raise awareness of the benefits of IRC, which can feed into the establishment of an overarching policy on IRC.

• Peru has demonstrated willingness to modernise its regulatory framework. The government has already taken steps to introduce policies and practices that align with the OECD’s Recommendation for Agile Regulatory Governance to Harness Innovation.

• Peru's legal framework has provisions to promote an agile regulatory governance system. The General Law on Improvement of Regulatory Quality defines the implementation of cost-effective innovation in regulation as one of the instruments of regulatory quality. The CMCR has the oversight of these instruments. However, given the recent implementation of the system of regulatory quality in Peru, no efforts on regulatory innovation have taken place yet within the framework of the Law.

• There is limited awareness of agile governance frameworks within the public administration, which may render fostering innovation and establishing regulatory frameworks that ensure future-proof regulation challenging. The analytical capacities of public servants to consult with experts and other external stakeholders on this matter are constrained.

• Work towards developing the framework for agile regulatory governance set in the General Law to Improve Regulatory Quality. This includes generating manuals, guidelines and other support materials that can encourage ministries and regulators to probe and try flexible approaches to regulation. Define more clearly the role of the Multisectoral Commission in the oversight of the implementation of cost-effective innovation in regulation.

• Leverage on the experiences and dispositions already in place to carry out structured pilots on agile regulatory governance that can render successful practices and lessons learned. The legal framework for regulatory sandboxes of the Superintendency of Banking and Insurance and the intensive use data-driven systems and risk-based enforcement and inspection by some regulatory agencies can serve as inspiration and starting point for the pilot programmes.